School shootings in the US seem to follow the same pattern, atrocity, Democrats plead, Republicans ignore, NRA pushes for looser gun control.

Social media goes mad, positions become entrenched. Where to go from here?

Is there a lesson to be learned from Brexit? In Brexit polls show that there is little apetite for a repeat of the referendum. HOWEVER there is an appetite for a referendum on the terms of the deal.

Maybe the same is true in the US. A call for a ban on guns is going to be met with huge opposition (or to quote a dad whose kid goes to school in Florida where the shooting happened- “I don’t want the government to take my gun”). However a call to have stronger background checks is pretty hard to be against (though hey they have managed it in the past) and may have a better chance of success. Possibly a ban on automatic rifles, bump stocks, large magazines etc. A call for an outright ban polarises and stalls. Maybe baby steps will work better?

Pondering the death penalty.

Florida shooter Nicolas Cruz, is 100% guilty of the shooting in Florida which left 17 in a school dead. He is allegedly offering to plead guilty if the death penalty is waived. This is a cut and dried, no possibility there is a mistake, case and there are strong cases for vengeance, not paying to keep the bastard alive and in jail, and what the heck to discourage others. If it was my kid who died I would be considering switching lethal injection for something painful….and yet…..

The bible says though shalt not kill. It doesn’t make exceptions for wankers.
Cases are not always cut and dried – miscarriages do occur and will occur.
Would his death help survivors and the families of the dead heal?

Further reformed criminals make great spokespeople.

I think of these words by Despmond Tutu – I used them at the funeral of my father, a concentration camp survivor.

On forgiveness:

I know it is the only way to heal the pain in my heart.

Forgiveness is not dependent on the actions of others.

Yes it is certainly easier to offer forgiveness when the perpetrator offers remorse

…this is the most

familiar pattern of forgiveness.

We don’t forgive for others. We forgive for ourselves.

Forgiveness, in other words, is the best form of self interest.

Forgiveness takes practice, honesty,

Open-mindedness and a willingness to try.

It isn’t easy.

(The Book of Forgiving: Desmond and Mpho Tutu)

I don’t have an answer – I wish I did, but as a Christian I guess I feel the bastard should live? Maybe? I could almost certainly kill him, but without guilt? I don’t know. I suspect not. And if I cannot kill him without guilt, is it right for me to ask another (ie the state) to do so on my behalf?.

Islam seems to be banging into me a lot this week, whether it is the one time Muslim extremist who I “met” on twitter who has now renounced Islam (while loving her culture and her people), or a rather extreme gentleman of whom more later.

As a liberal leaning white Christian male whose knowledge of Islam is limited to minimal reading on the subject I could be justifiably accused of knowing bugger all on the topic I am about to opine on….and yet despite my limitations when I read this…

“I doubt that we can eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat all together, but we can start by abolishing Madras Schooling, demolish all the mosques and close Muslim meeting places, instead of actually encouraging them. This is not persecution, but rather moves to safeguard Western culture, Western laws and Western lives”.

Followed by this “I wouldn’t dispatch them to a camp, at least one which our government is paying to sustain, but deport them to their country of origin.”

It DEMANDS some redress.

I doubt that we can eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat all together, but we can start by abolishing Madras Schooling, demolish all the mosques and close Muslim meeting places, instead of actually encouraging them. This is not persecution, but rather moves to safeguard Western culture, Western laws and Western lives”.

“I wouldn’t dispatch them to a camp, at least one which our government is paying to sustain, but deport them to their country of origin.”

If that’s not persecution what the fuck is? If you are in any doubt about this then replace Muslim with Irish Catholic in the time of the troubles….. we will destroy the catholic churches and the Irish pubs…..this is not persecution. Adding the words “this is not persecution” does not make it not persecution. Heads up….if you have to say “It’s not persecution” ….IT IS!

Deport to their country of origin! Even ignoring the fact that increasingly terrorists are home grown, during the troubles was anyone seriously declaring round up all the Irish in the UK and send them to Dublin? No? Because it is a nuts idea which even if possible would radicalise people. It seems to be that anyone who is not white should be deported …..but it’s not persecution because we put not persecution in the text!

I am not an apologist for Islam. I might be persuaded that it is a religion that prone to be subverted to violence (as all religions seem prone to be….look at the “Christians” in the US who seem oblivious to “love your neighbour as yourself”). I certainly think that intelligence services targeting radical Muslims is entirely rational. You focus on where the threat is. Is it discriminatory – Yep, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Extreme anti Islam positions, verging on the fascist do not only foster Islamic extremism they are also blind to the good that the Islamic community can do. I used to work in St.Thomas’ hospital – an entire ward was paid for by Muslims. You won’t read that in the Daily Mail. Nor will you read about Zakat – the obligation to give a tithe of your earnings to good causes. We have it in Christianity too….except that people actually doing it in Christianity is rare.

Civilisation exists in nuance – the recognition that things are shades of grey. These days the drive is to polarise, whether it is Trump, or Brexit or Islam – and civilisation is being throttled by it.

I have a friend, nice guy intelligent, educated (chartered accountant), of mixed Filipino/ UK heritage who lives abroad and is against immigration (his thing is Muslims and headscarves). Listening to him made me realise two things. One I agree with him on a lot of it. Two “immigrants” is a catch all term that is as misleading as it is informative.

When people say immigration do they mean cultural or financial or both?

Cultural Dilution:

Contention:

Western Europe pretty much monoculture ( the Irish, French, Germans, Italians etc are pretty much like us).
Africa is also a monoculture (excluding Arab Africa).
Arabian Africa and the Middle East are also a monoculture.

If someone from Ireland or France moves to the UK it is unlikely to change anything much. On the other hand someone from Saudi Arabia brings with them a whole set of cultural values and norms that are anathema to the UK. While it is OK for a limited number of people to emigrate here from Saudi (and may enrich our culture/ understanding) I would suggest we don’t want wholesale migration – and this is true for the other continents also.

Economic Migration:

“They come here stealing our jobs.” In much the same way when people complain about immigrants they are not, in the main, complaining about highly skilled workers from other western European countries where pay scales are similar to (or better than) ours. The complaints relate more to Eastern Europeans coming here, being paid less and under lower conditions than the indigenous workforce. I have heard this from Leave voters in the NW of England that low paid, unskilled foreign labour does indeed cut the pay etc for some UK workers. I have no reason to believe it is not true. There is a plausible (I believe) argument, that the inclusion of Eastern block countries into the EU was in part a deliberate attempt to provide low paid workers to bolster western European economies.

Some Thoughts.

Legitimate concerns about cultural dilution are used by the far right to promote an “Islamification of Europe” narrative, which is extremist fear mongering. It’s like a small child breaks your window and all of a sudden a wave of child vandals are sweeping the nation. A sense of perspective is required and awareness that cultures evolve. We are not stuck in the 1950’s.

Immigrants from outside the EU are nothing to do with the EU – if we let them in that’s our choice. Concerns about immigrants from the Middle East and Africa are still being lumped together with immigrants from within the EU. It confuses the argument and is wrong.

We already have record low unemployment – if the low paid foreign workers leave who will replace them? If our manufacturing costs go up will companies stay competitive (depends on their margins on a case by case basis), or will they go under?

If we make all foreigners unwelcome then we also risk losing the highly skilled workers we need – and this is already happening. Just because you say to someone “we’ll give you a visa” does not mean they want to either arrive or stay

When we talk about “immigrants” we need to be much clearer about who we mean.

I was in the pub eavesdropping on a group of men whose discussion went like this.

“We shouldn’t pay an EU exit bill, we already pay in more than we get out”.

Which in straight numbers is correct.
We are due to pay £17bn, but we get a rebate and money back for poorer areas….but we still pay £8.6bn a year (£24 million a day) more than we get back.

And this is pretty much the argument Remain made. Or to paraphrase “we don’t spend £350m a week you lying bastards its only £148m” ….which is hardly a compelling pro -remain argument.

The argument should be. We pay £24 million a day to have open access to the biggest market in the whole world and which accounts for 44% of our trade. £24 million gives us membership of the Single Market, which enables our products to be recognised across the EU without the need to meet 27 different national legislation. This cuts costs for our businesses and enables multinational marketing and sales in which UK companies can sell products or parts to every country in the EU. This accounts for 12% of our trade.

£24 million a day also gives us membership of the Customs Union which means that rather than trying to forge our own trade deals against the mega economies of China and America, by acting as part of a block we can meet them on their own terms, with the technical, institutional and financial ability to defend ourselves in international courts. This enabled a rapid and effective block on Chinese steel dumping which was going to wipe out the UK steel industry. The independent business body the CBI confirms that membership of the EU gives us access to more markets, preferential access, and quicker trade deals. The recent EU – Canada trade deal is estimated to bring £1.3Bn annually to the UK…which we will lose with Brexit.

To simply equate direct money in with direct money back misses the much larger picture. The economic hit by leaving the EU is predicted to be – between a drop of 3.8% – 7.5% GDP with the worst case scenario of WTO rules after 15 years or a drop of 2.5% after 2 years.

A 2.5% drop is £48.5bn a year or nearly 6 times our EU contribution! That £24 million a day brings in £110 million a day in profit.

Now isn’t that better than “we don’t spend £350m a week you lying bastards its only £148m“?

NIESR analysis:
Modelling events: The short term economic impact of leaving the EU. https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dp461.pdfSize of the UK economy in 2016:
https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-worlds-5th-or-9th-largest-economy/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_o7NBRDgARIsAKvAgt1OvtxO9YflFOaZ0T2TK4oyab_DbzQMxIAvwNqRs3K_vUGxlrWtKJMaAkxdEALw_wcB

Like a Pekinese barking at a lion Theresa May seems desperate to give the EU a kicking. Her belligerence risks herself, her party but most importantly, the UK. Why is she so intransigent?

I am beginning to wonder if it has little to do with politics, little to do with the national interest and everything to do with hurt feelings – whatever she tells herself.

While she was home secretary Theresa May hit the problem of deporting Abu Qatada, a key al Qaida supporter in the UK and wanted in Jordan for trial. However under the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) it is illegal to deport anyone for trial if there is the prospect of torture based evidence being used.

Theresa May appealed the court ruling – and lost every time. Why? Because torture based evidence is wrong.

The tabloids were in a storm, anti-EU rhetoric was ramped up and Theresa May huffed and puffed. But eventually Theresa May had to climb down. She got Jordan to agree not to use torture based evidence and Abu Qatada was deported (and acquitted).

Theresa May positioned this as a victory for her despite the horrible ECHR, while in fact she only succeeded because she climbed down and followed the ECHR ruling that torture based evidence is wrong.

Her recent actions seem to be a replay. Lots of rhetoric, posturing and expense while courting the tabloid press in order to avoid rulings that are in themselves neither mad nor onerous. Is Theresa May re-fighting her Abu Qatada battle rather than getting on with the job in hand? I think she might be.